The Supreme Court of India on Thursday granted one-week interim protection to two petitioners whose residential and marriage hall properties in Uttar Pradesh face demolition drives by local authorities, ordering all parties to maintain status quo during this period. Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta presided over the hearing, where petitioners argued that partial demolitions had already occurred without prior notice or due process, violating established judicial guidelines. The bench emphasized this temporary relief considering the urgency, as authorities were reportedly positioned with bulldozers ready to proceed further, but refused to entertain the plea directly under Article 32 of the Constitution, instead directing petitioners to approach the Allahabad High Court for comprehensive remedies.

During the proceedings, the bench questioned why petitioners bypassed the high court initially, reminding counsel of a landmark November 2024 Supreme Court judgment that set pan-India guidelines prohibiting "bulldozer justice." That ruling mandated a 15-day show cause notice before any demolition, hearing opportunities for affected parties, and video recording of proceedings, deeming executive-led property destruction without due process as "high-handed and arbitrary" abuses of power. Exceptions apply only to unauthorized structures on public spaces like roads, footpaths, or water bodies, or where court-ordered demolitions exist; the bench noted high courts handle such urgencies effectively upon mention, urging petitioners to leverage the precedent there rather than routinely invoking apex court jurisdiction under Article 32, which could render Article 226 redundant.

One petitioner, described as a 75-year-old man, claimed authorities ignored pleas for notice and hearing, with counsel arguing this defied rule of law principles amid bulldozers on site. The bench acknowledged these submissions but insisted they be raised before the jurisdictional high court, granting liberty for urgent listing given partial demolitions underway; it clarified the interim order would not prejudice high court merits. Counsel raised contempt allegations against authorities for flouting prior Supreme Court directives, to which the bench suggested filing a separate contempt petition, underscoring judicial oversight mechanisms in such disputes.

Also Read: Reliance Stops Using Russian Oil at Jamnagar SEZ Ahead of EU Sanctions

This intervention highlights ongoing tensions over summary demolitions in Uttar Pradesh, often linked to enforcement against alleged illegal constructions amid law-and-order concerns, despite Supreme Court curbs. The 2024 guidelines aimed to prevent arbitrary executive actions masquerading as urban planning, requiring detailed demolition orders specifying violations and timelines, with appeals available post-execution. Legal experts view the current stay as reinforcing constitutional safeguards, preventing irreversible losses while lower courts adjudicate, amid broader national scrutiny on property rights versus public interest.

Petitioners now have seven days to seek high court intervention, with railway-like urgency in listing promised for demolition cases. Further developments, including investigation into the partial demolitions' causes and compliance with apex court norms, remain awaited as this reinforces checks against unchecked administrative power.

Also Read: Supreme Court Seeks EC Reply on Voter Roll Purge Allegations, Puts SIR on Hold